06 December 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — I am pleased to rise to speak on the Planning and Environment Amendment (Schools) Bill 2011 and to support the government in its implementation of this policy commitment, which is yet another policy commitment made and about to be delivered by the Baillieu government.
Before I go any further, I will just address a couple of issues raised by the member for Richmond.
In terms of the timing of the bill in the legislative program, that is a matter for the Leader of the House. However, I find it rather curious that for the last three sitting weeks the opposition has attacked the government business program, saying there were too many bills on the program and that it did not have time to debate anything. Now the member opposite is asking the government why it did not bring the bill forward earlier. I simply make that observation. However, in terms of the actual timing that is a matter for the Leader of the House.
With regard to the other matter raised, the retrospectivity or otherwise of the legislation, the short answer is no, the bill is not retrospective, but from the time the growth areas infrastructure contribution (GAIC) was established until now it has not been triggered, so there is no need for retrospectivity in the legislation. In that sense the legislation is prospective.
To return to the bill, it is, as I said, the implementation of a policy commitment. I am sure many members who were here in the last Parliament will recall the passage of the growth areas infrastructure contribution legislation and the intent therein to fund essential infrastructure on the fringe in Melbourne’s growth areas.
It always seemed rather strange to me that on the one hand you would introduce a tax to fund essential infrastructure, and I do not believe there is daylight between either side of the house on the necessity for that, while on the other hand taxing the very infrastructure that it was proposed to introduce, because schools are essential infrastructure.
As the minister said at the time this bill was announced, that was a shameful tax. By introducing and hopefully passing this bill we will remove that tax, and we will create a situation where parents and students have the opportunity to make their choice of schools in an environment which is totally free of the influence of a tax, which to some extent skews the decision. In these sorts of things you need — and I hate to use the phrase because, (a), it is overused and, (b), it has connotations in this context — a level playing field in terms of these decisions.
People need to be able to make their decisions without external factors. It is particularly important here, because essentially one‑third of all Victorian students attend non‑government schools.
The proposal in this bill is based on a number of principles. The first principle is that exclusions from the requirement to pay GAIC for education should apply uniformly to both government and non‑government schools for all three GAIC triggers. Secondly, we believe a school provider should be able to subdivide to develop land for a school without triggering a GAIC liability, which is not the case at the moment. Thirdly, it is important to say that the proposed exclusions do not remove the land from the GAIC scheme. Indeed the member for Richmond touched on that, because clearly if a school development does not proceed on a particular piece of land or if further down the track the land ceases to be used for the purposes of a school, GAIC should be triggered, and given the way the legislation is drafted, that is what the case will be. Fourthly, we took the view that the proposed exclusions should not apply retrospectively.
GAIC was introduced during the last Parliament. It was intended to require people who subdivide, purchase or proceed to develop land within the growth areas to make a contribution to the provision of essential infrastructure. The original bill had a rather chequered career. The first draft that was considered by the Parliament was, one would have to say, a less than stellar effort and was quite rightly rejected in the other place. That led to some interesting discussions on whether a bill was dead when it was rejected in the other place, but as we all know eventually an improved version was passed. But I think it needs to be said that the version that was passed was far from perfect in the eyes of the then opposition, the now government, and we have had to set about and do some considerable renovations to the structure of the charge. This renovation in terms of the application for independent schools is the second change that has been made.
Earlier this year the Planning and Environment (Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution) Bill 2011 was passed by both houses, and that legislation implemented the government’s commitment to enable 100 per cent of the GAIC liability, triggered by a dutiable transaction, to be deferred until some development occurs.
What that means in real terms is that a parcel of land which is onsold and may not be developed for 10 years or more will trigger the charge only at the point where it is developed, rather than up‑front. In that context, a dutiable transaction is a transfer of land or a land‑rich transaction in terms of the contribution. Section 201RA of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 tells us that there are three triggers for GAIC: the issuing of a statement of compliance, the making of an application for a building permit to carry out building work on the land or the occurrence of a dutiable transaction.
One of the key things driving this legislation is our belief that all schools should be treated equally, and clearly under the existing GAIC scheme they are not. A different framework applies, and a different outcome is achieved.
The bill sets up a regime where two exclusions are added to the section of the act so that the subdivision of land or the issuing of a building permit specifically for a school will not trigger a GAIC liability. The reason behind that is that many Victorian families want to have the opportunity to choose the best education for their kids. As I said, about one‑third of Victorian children are in the non‑government system. Many of these are low‑fee schools; they service many low‑income families as well as the more comfortably off. We believe families should have the right to choose the sort of education they want for their children, whether they want to send them to a government school or a non‑government school. The implementation of this bill will facilitate that choice.
In conclusion, this is good legislation. It implements an excellent policy commitment, and I commend the bill to the house.
Legislative Assembly 6 December 2011
Printer Friendly Version...